If you are new to the forums, you must register a free account before you can post. The forums have a separate registration from the rest of www.chronofhorse.com, so your log in information for one will not automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Fats and amino acids (from proteins), for the most part funnel into the TCA (Krebs/Citric Acid) cycle as acetyl coA (fats) or as alpha keto acids (amino acids). The only way these would become a simple sugar is to be converted backwards up the gluconeogenesis pathway, which is possible and done to maintain blood sugar levels. But it is not necessary for use.

Again, sorry, but misinformation on this area bugs me as it is in your basic biochemistry textbook... The professor in me can't let this go.

Sorry you are correct the Acetyl Choline and the Krebs cycle also produce ATP although Glycolisis is much more efficient and utilizes glucose. What i was trying to say is once the food source is broken down to glucose or acetyle choline, the body does not care too much what the source was, so it is really the pathway of digestion that is of more concern.

however blanket statements like "dogs do not need fibre, and "wild dogs only eat meat are ridiculous". I have personallly seen hyena and wild dogs in the maize fields, eating corn cobs, and eating wild watermelon, and i bet every dog owner who has horses has seen their dog eat manure. the Jackals can survive for quite a long time just on manure etc.

I am not a particular proponent of feeding corn, but I do think blanket statements are almost always incorrect.

however blanket statements like "dogs do not need fibre, and "wild dogs only eat meat are ridiculous". I have personallly seen hyena and wild dogs in the maize fields, eating corn cobs, and eating wild watermelon, and i bet every dog owner who has horses has seen their dog eat manure. the Jackals can survive for quite a long time just on manure etc.

I am not a particular proponent of feeding corn, but I do think blanket statements are almost always incorrect.

Really cool about actually seeing hyenas and wild dogs!! But I SO did not need to know about Jackals and manure...

however blanket statements like "dogs do not need fibre, and "wild dogs only eat meat are ridiculous". I have personallly seen hyena and wild dogs in the maize fields, eating corn cobs, and eating wild watermelon, and i bet every dog owner who has horses has seen their dog eat manure. the Jackals can survive for quite a long time just on manure etc.

true enough. But dogs don't need fiber- you can not-feed your dog any fiber at all his entire life and he'll be robustly healthy, indicating he has no dietary NEED for it. You can not-feed your dog a single food item that grew on a plant his entire life and he'll be robustly healthy, because he has no dietary NEED for any plant-derived foods. Because at base the dog's body is that of a carnivore.
It's also true that you CAN feed your dog plants, and fiber, and grains, and he won't drop dead.
And it's true that dogs often go out and eat non-meat items like poop, and fruit, and grains. But that doesn't mean such food items are GOOD for them- watch some people eating sometime. People rarely seek out food items that are actually GOOD for them- they instead seek out junk food. Watch them. Lay out a spread of food items, and you can be sure the less nutritious items, like potato chips and sweets, will be eagerly gobbled up while the healthy leafy greens are only taken dutifully by a few.
So why would you assume any other animal would be any different? just because they seek it out and want to eat it doesn't mean it's in any way good for the animal. Might even be deadly- dogs like to drink anti-freeze too.

There's also a BIG difference between snacking once or twice a year on some food item, like corn, and eating a diet that is primarily composed of corn. BIG difference. Your hungry wild animal gobbles the corn once a year, and spends the rest of the year eating rodents or whatever; he doesn't eat corn day after day, every day of his life. What is healthy in moderation or as an occasional snack can turn deadly if eaten all the time.

The real question is what is the OPTIMAL diet for the animal? what diet is most likely to result in lifelong good health, and reduce the risk of developing chronic illnesses in middle and late life?
for dogs it's pretty clear that a primarily carnivorous diet is what the body is designed to eat, and most likely it is the optimal diet for life-long health.
No one has ever actually done the real, definitive study to prove this, though, and probably no one ever will.

true enough. But dogs don't need fiber- you can not-feed your dog any fiber at all his entire life and he'll be robustly healthy, indicating he has no dietary NEED for it. You can not-feed your dog a single food item that grew on a plant his entire life and he'll be robustly healthy, because he has no dietary NEED for any plant-derived foods. Because at base the dog's body is that of a carnivore.
It's also true that you CAN feed your dog plants, and fiber, and grains, and he won't drop dead.
And it's true that dogs often go out and eat non-meat items like poop, and fruit, and grains. But that doesn't mean such food items are GOOD for them- watch some people eating sometime. People rarely seek out food items that are actually GOOD for them- they instead seek out junk food. Watch them. Lay out a spread of food items, and you can be sure the less nutritious items, like potato chips and sweets, will be eagerly gobbled up while the healthy leafy greens are only taken dutifully by a few.
So why would you assume any other animal would be any different? just because they seek it out and want to eat it doesn't mean it's in any way good for the animal. Might even be deadly- dogs like to drink anti-freeze too.

There's also a BIG difference between snacking once or twice a year on some food item, like corn, and eating a diet that is primarily composed of corn. BIG difference. Your hungry wild animal gobbles the corn once a year, and spends the rest of the year eating rodents or whatever; he doesn't eat corn day after day, every day of his life. What is healthy in moderation or as an occasional snack can turn deadly if eaten all the time.

The real question is what is the OPTIMAL diet for the animal? what diet is most likely to result in lifelong good health, and reduce the risk of developing chronic illnesses in middle and late life?
for dogs it's pretty clear that a primarily carnivorous diet is what the body is designed to eat, and most likely it is the optimal diet for life-long health.
No one has ever actually done the real, definitive study to prove this, though, and probably no one ever will.

Scientists have done studies of wild cats and dogs though and they do eat plant material for fiber and to soothe the stomach.

It's very common for domestic cats and dogs to eat grass for that purpose also.

true enough. But dogs don't need fiber- you can not-feed your dog any fiber at all his entire life and he'll be robustly healthy, indicating he has no dietary NEED for it. You can not-feed your dog a single food item that grew on a plant his entire life and he'll be robustly healthy, because he has no dietary NEED for any plant-derived foods. Because at base the dog's body is that of a carnivore.
It's also true that you CAN feed your dog plants, and fiber, and grains, and he won't drop dead.
And it's true that dogs often go out and eat non-meat items like poop, and fruit, and grains. But that doesn't mean such food items are GOOD for them- watch some people eating sometime. People rarely seek out food items that are actually GOOD for them- they instead seek out junk food. Watch them. Lay out a spread of food items, and you can be sure the less nutritious items, like potato chips and sweets, will be eagerly gobbled up while the healthy leafy greens are only taken dutifully by a few.
So why would you assume any other animal would be any different? just because they seek it out and want to eat it doesn't mean it's in any way good for the animal. Might even be deadly- dogs like to drink anti-freeze too.

There's also a BIG difference between snacking once or twice a year on some food item, like corn, and eating a diet that is primarily composed of corn. BIG difference. Your hungry wild animal gobbles the corn once a year, and spends the rest of the year eating rodents or whatever; he doesn't eat corn day after day, every day of his life. What is healthy in moderation or as an occasional snack can turn deadly if eaten all the time.

The real question is what is the OPTIMAL diet for the animal? what diet is most likely to result in lifelong good health, and reduce the risk of developing chronic illnesses in middle and late life?
for dogs it's pretty clear that a primarily carnivorous diet is what the body is designed to eat, and most likely it is the optimal diet for life-long health.
No one has ever actually done the real, definitive study to prove this, though, and probably no one ever will.

I very much doubt that there is any study done, or any way to prove that a carnivore will go its whole life without eating fibre. I suggest that you read a study of the eating habits of brown hyenas. It is not an occasional diet choice but a larger percentage of their diet is fruit and melons.

and, once again, i am not a proponent of feeding dogs a diet that is largely vegetable or corn or grain.

Sorry you are correct the Acetyl Choline and the Krebs cycle also produce ATP although Glycolisis is much more efficient and utilizes glucose. What i was trying to say is once the food source is broken down to glucose or acetyle choline, the body does not care too much what the source was, so it is really the pathway of digestion that is of more concern.

however blanket statements like "dogs do not need fibre, and "wild dogs only eat meat are ridiculous". I have personallly seen hyena and wild dogs in the maize fields, eating corn cobs, and eating wild watermelon, and i bet every dog owner who has horses has seen their dog eat manure. the Jackals can survive for quite a long time just on manure etc.

I am not a particular proponent of feeding corn, but I do think blanket statements are almost always incorrect.

Umm, net ATP production from glycolysis is 2 ATP.
Net ATP production from the KRebs cycle is 8 NADH, 2 ATP, 2 FADH2, so I'd put the efficiency of the Krebs cycle above that of simple glycolysis.

But the real energy production in terms of efficiency is the electron transport chain...

Just food for thought - few animals really lives on straight meat alone. Wasn't there a study on the healthy cat diet -and the healthiest diet for cats was mice, which, by the way, is not just meat. - it's brain (full of lipids), liver (lots of nutrients and not just meat), bone, hide, etc. Animals actually will selectively eat carcasses - including the entrails of grazing/herbivore prey. Our old basset would catch and selectively eat the heads of rabbits. Our cat would leave headless rats. Eeww..

Sorry to hijack....but is that true? If it is, that's really fascinating and I always wondered why my cat would eat the heads of things and not necessarily the body as well.

---Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013http://www.marklynas.org/
I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.
As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter- productive path. I now regret it completely.
-
-
"---

---Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013http://www.marklynas.org/
I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.
As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter- productive path. I now regret it completely.
-
-
"---

Must be true. I read it on the internet!

P.S. Maybe he has an answer for why the incidence of gluten intolerance is increasing?

So, if you put up a link, it is to be taken as gospel, but any one else's is not true?

Of course not. There are lots of well educated intelligent minds on both sides of all of these food concerns (meat and grains.) You separate ONE issue and go to ONE opinion, and I don't think that is persuasive.

seems I just read an article somewhere that high fructose corn syrup was digested differently, all fructose was, than sucrose... in humans, not to get totally off track. Something to the effect that it didn't register in the body as having been eaten so people continued to be hungry when if they had had sucrose instead they would have been satiated.

Corn has its place in the world but I think it's a little creepy how they're turning it into so many things that it isn't. Way of the world.

For the one who asked: Lipids in brain tissue - From what I understand, and I am not a physiologist, neurons and brain tissue are coated with the myelin sheath as insulation against voltage signal transduction. The myelin is composed primarily of lipids with specific structures, so yes, the brain is "full of fat" so to speak (simplistically).

And digestion of fructose: sucrose is composed of fructose and glucose. It is broken down into these two sugars before transport into the blood stream. Glucose is the highly regulated blood sugar that your body responds to. When folks talk about fructose not being "digested the same" I believe they are really talking about the physiological responses to fructose in the blood stream - that it is "not seen". So the body would have a dampened physiological response to a food with high fructose instead of glucose, starch or sucrose. Fructose, once it is in a cell, easily enters into the glycolysis pathway and is broken down very similarly to glucose.

Although many herbivores and omnivores have been shown to balance their intake of macronutrients when faced with nutritionally variable foods, study of this ability has been relatively neglected in carnivores, largely on the assumption that prey are less variable in nutrient composition than the foods of herbivores and omnivores and such mechanisms therefore unnecessary. We performed diet selection studies in 5 breeds of adult dog (Canis lupus familiaris) to determine whether these domesticated carnivores regulate macronutrient intake. Using nutritional geometry, we show that the macronutrient content of the diet was regulated to a protein:fat:carbohydrate ratio of approximately 30%:63%:7% by energy, a value that was remarkably similar across breeds. These values, which the analysis suggests are dietary target values, are based on intakes of dogs with prior experience of the respective experimental food combinations. On initial exposure to the diets (i.e., when naive), the same dogs self-selected a diet that was marginally but significantly lower in fat, suggesting that learning played a role in macronutrient regulation. In contrast with the tight regulation of macronutrient ratios, the total amount of food and energy eaten was far higher than expected based on calculated maintenance energy requirements. We interpret these results in relation to the evolutionary history of domestic dogs and compare them to equivalent studies on domestic cats.

A lot of people seem to focus on the quality of the stool as an indicator of the quality of the dog food. While taking into account gas, weight gain, physical appearance, health of teeth is very important, I am not convinced from the research that I have done that having a tiny firm stool is ideal for a dog or for anyone. I would argue that dietary fiber is necessary for many dogs digestive health and that corn provides a source of dietary fiber as well as lowers the protein content of some foods which can prevent upset stomachs for many dogs and allow them to eat slightly larger meals without gaining weight.

Now for the anecdotal information which has no factual basis:
My family has had large dogs live into their late teens with a high quality of life and minimal weight problems, no arthritis until after 16, etc when fed science diet. These were active working dogs with healthy teeth, good energy levels, and no gas.

We recently took care of a dog that was on a "high quality" all meat diet and has been fed raw. She had greasy coat and was overweight. The poor dog strained and strained to poop, but her owner exclaimed how wonderful her small stools were and how this indicated good health. She would strain so much that she would bleed. At her owner's recommendation, we added pumpkin, sweet potatoes, slippery elm, etc to her already extremely expensive food with no results. We switched her to science diet and she immediately became happier, had slightly larger poops, and had no more stomach discomfort. She lost weight and became more active with being fed slightly more food so she was also less hungry.

I am not a science diet or nothing kind of a person, but I do feel that they have significant and comprehensive research on their foods, something that some of the newer and smaller companies do not have. I have not found corn to be problematic for my dogs, unless they have a specific corn allergy. My dogs have always done better than on other foods such as solid gold or even wellness when they did not thrive.

We fed our one show golden solid gold and the quality of her coat, muscles, and her nose pigmentation went down hill. Back to science diet and she did great in the show ring and lived a good healthy life.

I am always researching dog food to determine what is in the best interest of my personal pets and have seen too many dogs die or become very sick from raw to consider that. I also work with people with immune deficiencies and do not want to put them at risk for what I see as very little benefit.

When I see corn in a food (depending on the part) I often consider it a fiber or bulk source to help with food digestion and digestive processing. Other foods likely meet the same requirements at a higher cost, but I have not yet jumped completely from the corn bandwagon and have been lucky to have relatively healthy, active, and happy pets with clean teeth and high qualities of life baring genetic problems of my one cat who still lived 5 years longer than his vets predicted.

To each his own. I would not feed an exclusively corn based diet, but I would not corn as an ingredient in an otherwise high quality food it unless I had a specific reason that it would not work for my pet. I think understanding the protein levels and other nutrients of the food is much more important that just finding a "no corn" food. Some things that are put in pet foods such as avocados, fruits, etc. sound good to people but are really not good for dogs. If I have to scoop up a slightly larger stool in the yard, that is no biggy to me, especially if it means my dog can stool without discomfort. If I want a shinier coat on my dog, I can achieve that from supplementing with omega fats instead of feeding all meat with no fiber.